No, why would they? This is likely a placeholder but Northrop Grumman have had a similar aircraft in all their NGAD slides and discussions..Essentially a larger aircraft, most likely subsonic, with 1500 nm or so radius (unfueled) as per some guesses based on drawings and expected mission needs.. or so and a very large internal bay for things like larger weapons and directed energy weapons...

Interestingly all three major airframe developers worked with AFRL on the supersonic cruising aircraft over the last 10 years, that is sometime reffered to in the LRS-B material (although wrongly so)..Lokheed was the one that actually did it in the bomber size but Northrop and Boeing did theirs in the larger-very larger fighter / mini bomber sized..It appears that post that Northrop has been pushing a subsonic design and that also sits well with what their scientist said in his CSBA paper.

The object is obviously to execute an air campaign thousands of miles from home while at the same time reducing the burden on tankers and other support - basically organic support in terms of long range, long range sensors and AEW..They don't expect the likes of E-3, E-2's and JSTARS to survive contact with the enemy so will have them well back till the other strike aircraft make space for them.

I asked the Q becos there is a definite line/joint at the junction of the wing and the area that serves as the large end-piece/tip. In the absence of any vert/canted fins,like the FGFA's fins that swivel,these "tips" perhaps are being used as control surfaces.

It's a computer graphics airplane, so it does not need control surfaces. The laser beams are from the pointers used in PPT presentations. The Boeing X-36 used a canard and thrust vectoring, but this is because they used the X-36 to check if the control system would automatically reconfigure itself if some parts were battle-damaged. So they needed multiple types of control. This thing seems to use thrust vectoring, but may have something else for yaw as well, I don't see it. Offhand, yaw from just warping the wing does not seem to be adequate at all, and I don't see that a canard can be much help except to yaw by increasing drag (as opposed to providing sideways lift). Maybe as you say, the tips will flip up and down like a Kathakali performer doing hand expressions. Being so far out on a wing, huge moments can be generated with small surfaces.

Philip wrote:I asked the Q becos there is a definite line/joint at the junction of the wing and the area that serves as the large end-piece/tip. In the absence of any vert/canted fins,like the FGFA's fins that swivel,these "tips" perhaps are being used as control surfaces.

Its a placeholder image for what sort of capability they are looking into not an actual full up design.

This thing seems to use thrust vectoring, but may have something else for yaw as well, I don't see it.

I dont recall ever coming across an actual picture of that aircraft from the back..I think it had a unique thrust vectoring and may be something that used advanced (perhaps even fluidic) TVC that Mc.D had been working on before Boeing lapped them up.

The X-2 was an internal, company funded demonstrator not anything that will ever be operationalized. Its technology went into the Raider and the subsequent lessons learnt will go into the Boeing-Sikorsky JMR funded Defiant that will be entering prototyping very very soon (for first flight in a couple of years iirc). Given that the LMA, Sikorsky take over actually happens and is approved, there is no incentive for LMA to cull the partnership with Boeing that is already beginning and kicking off the Defiant program in support of a long term need beginning in the 2030's to replace a very large family of aircraft. In fact it gives Lockheed more incentive to keep themselves involved in both programs and to extend that technology into other applications. Both Sikorsky/Boeing, and Bell/Lockheed have a different solution for the prototypes. The US Army wants to do the prototype and technology demonstration program now before the end of the decade but the need is for much later. Once a program of record for an actual production aircraft is launched they can consider multiple designs, outside of these two, so it not not be these 2 teams that go into the formal program once it is started next decade.

Lockheed is a junior partner to Bell on the FVL's JMR phase of the program. I don't think anyone expected them to take a lead given there portfolio in rotary market has been as a supplier rather than a designer and integrator. What will most likely happen in this program a decade from now is that the US-Army will most likely choose one tilt-rotor for the FLV prototypes (current JMR program is focused on tech-demonstrations alone) and Bell will move away from Lockheed towards one of the other tilt-rotor firms in the mix - or the army will simply pick another company for the tilt-rotor option. They were clear that all 4 would compete for the FLV but only 2 will get to participate in the JMR. The remaining, continue to refine their designs through IRAD.

The only way two tilt rotors are picked for the Post RFP - development phase of the JMR is if the tilt-rotor concept performs significantly better and Bell is able to lay to rest the fears of the added cost for the added performance that tilt-rotors bring to the table. The pentagon had practically blessed a Boeing, or Lockheed acquisition of Sikorsky, and the fact that Lockheed is not a Rotary wing prime means that there would still be a balance between Bell and Sikorsky. The pentagon is more concerned about more vertical integration rather than horizontal integration and the writing has been on the wall when it comes to the sale or merger of either sikorsky or Bell...The demand from a new military product category was simply not there to see the margins United Technologies were looking from Sikorsky..

Just under two weeks ago, we talked about a poorly-translated test report that gave critics of the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II ammunition to suddenly declare it the worst dogfighter ever.

In the time since that article, you can’t find an aviation-oriented website that hasn’t put its two cents in, declaring the F-35 everything from an F-4 clone, to an F-105, and even going as far as calling it a BVR failure.

So is the F-35 truly the worst fighter ever?

From an acquisitions standpoint, it’s in the running. Plagued by delays, setbacks, and budget overruns, it has had its share of issues. It’s also guilty of a terrible public relations campaign.

But at the end of the day, this aircraft has done one thing no other aircraft has ever been able to do – turn an entire generation of aviation bloggers, journalists, and commenters into overnight military aviation experts.

It’s simply fascinating to watch every hipster who’s ever played Ace Combat sit back and pontificate about the downfalls of an aircraft that hasn’t even reached IOC. It’s like a renaissance of air combat.

As the first fighter in the digital age, the F-35 has allowed people to watch and read about the results of flight tests in near real time, drawing their own conclusions as to the success or failure of the program. Security clearance? Who needs it? Wikipedia has everything that anyone who’s ever played Battlefield 4 on Playstation needs to know in order to realize that the F-35 is a sitting duck if you happen to get it after a respawn.

I’m just a lowly fourth-gen pilot, so my opinions might not be as valid as someone who’s read a leaked FOUO report on the internet, but before the million-man Strawman Army reaches full strength, it may be time to inject some sanity into this discussion:

1) The F-35 vs F-16 flight was a developmental test flight.

I wrote an article about this already, and the horse is very much dead, but I think it’s worth repeating because the actual test report came out after the article. The flight was a Developmental Test Flight in which the test platform F-35 was sent out to test flight characteristics in high performance flight. Did I say test enough?

Flight control algorithms (because this jet has a computer running millions of lines of code telling each control surface what to do) were studied and determined to require adjustment (pitch rates, departure resistance logic, etcetera). No other conclusion is valid from this TEST.

2) Comparisons to any Vietnam-era aircraft are INVALID.

The F-4 struggled in an era of AIM-4, AIM-9, and AIM-7. These missiles failed often (AIM-4) and either had to be guided the entire time of flight (AIM-7) or could only be shot from tail aspect (AIM-9). A reliance on these missiles had come at a time when the Air Force had shifted its focus to shooting down Soviet bombers in a Cold War scenario.

The F-105 comparison is so ridiculous it’s barely worth mentioning. Both the USAF Weapons School and Navy’s TOP GUN develop tactics to suit every aircraft in the fleet. These tactics key on strengths, minimize weaknesses, and address threats. And even after these tactics are developed, they evolve over time. What else do you expect?

It is 2015. Think of BFM as the equivalent of unarmed hand to hand combat for Marine grunts. It is important, because it is self defense, but it is not THE mission. It is not the primary method of achieving a kill. It hasn’t been since the early 80s. Yes, BFM can still happen. There are hundreds of scenarios where an F-35 may find its way to the merge. In a world with high off-boresight short and medium-range missiles, is it still possible to get a guns kill? Absolutely. Is it likely? No.

In an environment where everyone, including the enemy, has these missiles, a prolonged engagement in which you dogfight into a gun weapons employment zone is not a highly survivable situation. Unless you managed to get wrapped up with the only remaining MiG in bad-guy country, it likely means his buddies are close by. Saddling up for a guns kill from a neutral merge takes time and fuel – luxuries you just don’t have in combat. And this applies to any aircraft – fifth-gen, fourth-gen, or said threat country.

Countries have spent a lot of time and money developing these missiles for this very reason. If you find yourself in the phonebooth, the quickest kill is the most survivable. Now, if the F-35 gets into a turning fight is it a sitting duck? I don’t know. You can find HUD footage of a T-38 gunning an F-22 on YouTube. Is a trainer aircraft with paper-thin wings a BFM monster against a jet that nearly flies up its own rear-end during airshows? No. But any given Sunday, anything is possible.

The F-35A is a 9G-capable aircraft with a monster engine and a relatively high-alpha capability. It may not be a Raptor. It may not even be a Viper, but it won’t be an F-4 either. I don’t know how it will do in Dissimilar Air Combat Training until it starts wrapping it up on a regular basis in the real world (i.e. – operational squadrons, not test aircraft in test squadrons). And guess what? None of these journalists do either.

It’s hard not to laugh when another “definitive” article comes out declaring not only is the F-35 a lame duck WVR, but it’s also dead in the water BVR. Holy crap.

There are two groups of people that know the true capabilities of the F-35: those that have the clearance necessary to read about it, and the people who built it (who have the same clearance)…. And probably the Chinese, but that’s another story. Anyone else that makes claims to know what the capabilities of this aircraft are and how they compare to threat aircraft (also classified, by the way), are just wrong and have traveled so far out of their lane it’s not even funny. They just don’t know what they don’t know.

I’m sorry, but you don’t have a right or need to know. The military keeps these things classified for a very good reason – to save American lives. Sensors, capabilities, tactics, and the like are not going to be released to journalists unless someone does so illegally. And even then, it’s like a dog watching TV. They’re not going to understand what they’re even looking at (as we’ve seen in these “expert interpretations” of a leaked FOUO test report).

Why is this important? Because any unclassified source that claims to know how an F-35 will do in a BVR engagement is flat-out wrong. Anything beyond that is pure speculation based on marketing brochures that are worth less in the real world than the paper they’re printed on. Sorry.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the first aircraft to be developed, tested, and flown in the “instant gratification” age. No other aircraft has had its dirty laundry aired in real time quite like this one. And a lot of people have worn out their “Jump to Conclusions Mat” as a result – without any valid information to back it up.

4.) The F-35 debate is political in nature.

This is where I must apologize. In my follow up, I went a bit out of my way to trash the F-35 as a program.

As a fighter pilot, this is pretty far out of my own lane. The merits of the cost per unit and total program costs/timeline are something politicians and elected officials should debate and explain to America. As a taxpayer, it’s everyone’s right to question how money is spent. But the two issues should not be confused. I should not have brought it up as part of the argument.

How an aircraft is acquired doesn’t mean much in the battlespace. The military acquisitions process needs work, or as Navy dudes say, it’s an “other.” That’s really irrelevant to the onslaught of hit pieces that have come out lately.

5.) The F-35 won’t be a bust, but it also won’t be perfect either.

Both the F/A-18 and F-16 have had almost 30 years worth of development, and neither of them are perfect to this day. They weren’t perfect when they first came out and both aircraft have their own strengths and weaknesses. Having flown both, I have seen it firsthand. That doesn’t mean either aircraft is a bust. Very smart fighter pilots and engineers have done a great job in making them very formidable against even newer and better threat aircraft.

I am confident that the next generation of fighter pilots and engineers will make the F-35 equally lethal through superior training, tactics, and even aircraft upgrades down the road. It’s just what we do as American fighter pilots.

It may be frustrating for spectators and participants alike. There may be more growing pains, but it’s going to push through eventually. And if you’re a true aviation enthusiast, you should be rooting for it.

From my perspective, the horse is dead and I won’t feed the million-man Strawman Army anymore. The show will go on and, eventually, this jet will become the face of the American strike fighter.

The guns don't aim, the engines burnThe noise is deafening and the plane cyain't turn..

But we ain't got no Option B, hurrah, hurrah!

The cellphone's cute and got paint to suit, hurrah hurrah! It can text a 1000 at a time, hurrah, hurrah! The U-tube video's oh so cool.. the fan door lift makes u drool And at $180 mil a pop you'd be a fool If you didn't go buy three thousand, hurrah! hurrah!

All milestones have been met and paperwork has been completed in preparation for the U.S. Marines to be the first among 12 nations' militaries buying the F-35 to declare it operational, according USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation Jon Davis.

What remains is for Marine Corps Commandant Joseph Dunford to give the official nod for initial operational capability, Davis said July 27. The IOC declaration is expected by “the end of July,” said USMC spokesman Maj. Paul Greenberg. Dunford has been nominated to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Davis says the first squadron – VMFA-121 in Yuma, Arizona – is ready for operations following an operational readiness inspection. Lockheed Martin builds the F-35; the Marines are declaring IOC with the F-35, optimized for short takeoff and vertical landing. The U.K. and Italy are also buying the B version. The U.S. Air Force expects to declare its IOC by December 2016, with the Navy to follow by February 2019.

A major concern for Davis moving forward is to improve the mission capability rate for the stealthy, single-engine aircraft. VMFA-121’s rates are around 60%, where they are expected to be now. This is because the squadron comprises early low-rate initial production jets. Aircraft off the line later in production, which are being used in training, are performing better, Davis said.

The goal for reaching full operational capability, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017, is 80% he said.

An issue is that spares accounts are often raided and readiness rates are tied to the availability of spares for crews maintaining the aircraft.

First indication of FOC requirements (USMC) - 80% availability rates + Block 3F software capability (Full internal and external payloads, gun-pod, generation III helmet and the new computer processors..)...From what I gather they also plan on having 3-4 operational squadrons by FOC as well. I'd expect the mission availability rates for the Green-Knights to improve considerably over the short term since all their jets have NOW (as recently as 3 weeks ago for the last 2) received all the concurrency changes at the depot, and the squadron was the first to receive the new block ALIS software along with the new operational ALIS hardware that (the software) has cut down the false alarms by more than half...I wouldnt be surprised if the next GAO report puts the Mission availability rates closer to 70% for this particular squadron by the year end. Late last year the overall fleet mission availability rates (all services) were around 65% primarily due to the fleet mix changing and LRIP5+ aircraft trickling in that already had a lot of the concurrency changes from the start..As that ratio changes (More LRIP5, 6 ++ jets to LRIP 1-4 jets) the overall fleet availability will logically change for the better despite slow pace of sending the first 4 LRIP blocks to the depot.

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James has admitted to a wide range of past and present problems with the F-35 while maintaining that the fifth-general will eventually guarantee the U.S. continued air supremacy over rivals.

"The biggest lesson I have learned from the F-35 is never again should we be flying an aircraft while we're building it," James said at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado last week.

In development stages, "People believed we could go faster, cheaper, better" by designing and building the F-35 concurrently, "and that the degree of concurrency would work. Indeed it has not worked as well as we had hoped and that's probably the understatement of the day," James said.

"It has taken us too long, it has cost us way more money than we ever imagined possible," James said of the most expensive weapons program in Pentagon history. "We're very focused from now on to driving the cost down per unit and they are coming down."

However, she noted that there were additional challenges to making the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II operational. "I would sum it up in one word – software," James said, noting the 24 million lines of code in the aircraft.

F-16 Dogfight

James also agreed that an F-35A "didn't do so well" in mock dogfights with an F-16 last January. The test pilot's assessment, first reported by the "War Is Boring" blog, said that the F-35 lacked the maneuverability to keep up with the F-16 and the F-35 pilot's helmet cut down on his vision.

"There were multiple occasions when the bandit (F-16) would've been visible but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him," the report said.

James said the dogfight against the F-16 provided the F-35 program with valuable data but she also stressed that the F-35 will be a different plane when it's fully operational.The F-35 then will have the capability to "see an enemy hundreds of miles in the distance," James said. "We get the first weapon off, we deliver the first punch and the bad guys don't know what hit them. The idea is not a close-in dogfight but with that said, by the time we're at full operational capability, we'll be much better in that arena as well."

At his Senate Armed Services Committee nomination hearing last week, Lt. Gen. Robert Neller, the choice to succeed Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford as the next Marine Commandant, said the Marine Corps was eagerly awaiting the arrival of the F-35s.

Neller praised "the electronics and all the information that this thing (the F-35) is going to be able to gather and eventually disseminate to the force on the ground. It's going to change how we do what we do. I'm an infantry guy. Planes are nice but they're really nice when they drop bombs and tell me what's on the other side of the hill."

On Monday, the head of Marine Corps aviation, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, said that 10 F-35B versions of the aircraft had passed all tests recently conducted in Yuma, Ariz., and met all requirements for a declaration of combat readiness.

He said that Dunford was expected to make a decision soon on the IOC (Initial Operating Capability) of the F-35B, which is designed for short takeoff and vertical landing.

In a telephone news conference, Davis said the F-35s were "incredibly impressive" in targeting and providing close air support for ground troops.

Reminds me of a (Mongolian)AF Defence Advisory Group meeting in (Chenghis-Tatar) AFB back in the early '90s. Room full of medals. A parade of uniformed officers came in, and made presentations like Our F-xx squadrons at ABC AFB are at 100 percent Readiness, SSIRRR! One came in with the fin hanging by a single fastener just the other day, they're breaking all over the place, my maintenance men haven't slept in weeks,BUT WE ARE AT 100 PERCENT READINESS, SIR!!

Mission availability rates are generally determined by the supply of spares, in this case the quality of the data being gathered from the PHM that is used to order and tweak that supply of spares, and the preparedness and familiarization of the maintainers with the weapons system and all its components. There are a few things that currently have a significant impact on the F-35 MA rate -

* Concurrency changes ID's but not yet incorporated - This is getting to be less of a problem since the LRIP 5+ jets are coming in with a lot of concurrency changes already installed from the factory, but for the older aircraft things are still an issue. The USMC and the Green Knights have had their 10 F-35B's sent out to the USMC and USAF depots to get all the necessary changes incorporated and will see a significant improvement as they track the MA rates over the next 12 months.

* ALIS - ALIS V-1 had significant issues with false alarms as was practically useless as an analytics tool to prepare a pool of spares and disperse it to the various sites and users. ALIS V2 cuts that rate in half and they are confident with it to a point that the Vendor is willing to sign a PBL contract based on 2-3 years worth of ALIS V2 data (by full rate of production). If the data is still not up to the mark the contractor will get burnt as it guarantees an availability rate and pool of spares.

* Inspections - There is still, to the best of my knowledge 30% of the current 140 or so fleet that has yet to receive the engine fixes. For this fleet, the inspection regime is still in place although it has been relaxed from what it was earlier.

Every major aircraft that is introduced into the USMC or the USAF (or the USN for that matter) improves its MA rates as the service familiarizes with it in an operational context. When the Harrier was first delivered it had MA rates all over the place with numbers dropping all the way down to a 50% as the fleet was being built up. The mission availability rates were around the 90% mark in gulf-war. With the PBL kicking in towards the end of the decade, a desired mission availability rate will be less of a headache for the operator and more so for the vendor that eventually gets the PBL contract.

For the Air-Force, the biggest hurdle is to get an adequate supply of maintainers. Till block 3F, and all the way till block 4A, there will be less outgoing F-16's and A-10's and more incoming F-35's (the number becomes nearly equal around 2020-2022 assuming a full rate of 60 A's per year for the US Air force) resulting in a very small pool of trained maintainers. For the USMC the issue is with a supply of Spares..Apparently the top leadership with the Marines want an ample supply of spares guaranteed NOW, so that they don't have to delay their deployment to Japan in 2017. That paperwork is the only thing left for them to declare IOC. The USN would walk straight into an established PBL by the time it IOC's, so they should expect the smoothest path to high availability since the USMC and the USAF IOC's this week and next year respectively would/should give them plenty of heads up to plan for their IOC 3.5 years down the road.

UB, MA rates are not the best indicators of how much times you are spedning fixing issues on the weapons system for most of the time, large rises or falls in MA rates are a function of the availability of spares, the accuracy in determining the requirements for spares, and the money being committed to adequately fund the squadrons to achieve a given rate. The USMC for example due to sequester cut their depot level strength in favor of other budget priorities and by doing so willingly accepted a MA rate decline for the Hornet and Harrier fleet. There are plenty of other Key Priority metrics (Even are a part of the KPI's) that tell you how often components are breaking vs what you required or expected. There are component level MTBF rates, and down-time trackers that provide a much better indication of how "Hard the folks are working" to keep on target. Again, there are F-15, F-16 and even F-35 maintainers online that you can interact with to get a better idea. The F-16 community now even has a member of Hillaker's design team online and contributing..

“Next-generation is an understatement when applied to F-35. Keep in mind that this is the perspective of a maintainer, because they never would let me fly the darn thing. There was not a moment when I wasn’t infatuated with some detail of its construction, mission, or engineering. The maintainability factor is absolutely huge in comparison to platforms such as the F/A-18 or the AV-8B. In many cases, the aircraft seems as though it was designed with end-user practicality in mind, as opposed to the Hornet’s “need to replace a hydraulic pump? Great, remove all other things first” and the Harrier’s “engine replacement? That’s two wings coming off, baby!” Gone are the days of awful hi-torque fasteners that strip themselves out every time you look at them wrong. Behold, hex tips!

Maintainability is just a huge improvement, hands down, and its going to offset the cost in a way that some may have not yet considered. Now I’m a totally biased party, I can’t really think of many drawbacks in the design, at least none that are immediately evident to me as a mechanic. Sure, we had a few issues, but all were resolved without major incident during my tenure. There was a concern at one point regarding the C variant’s arresting gear possibly over-stressing the airframe during a carrier landing or field arrestment, but that’s been cleared up to my knowledge.

It may also be worth noting that in a traditional fleet squadron, all personnel find themselves working on all of the aircraft at once. At the Integrated Task Force, each individual aircraft had its own maintenance team, generally consisting of a Supervisor and at least one specialized individual per system. I preferred that maintenance paradigm, as it allowed me to get to know each aircraft individually. Knowing what sort of mission testing each one is doing at a given time makes it so much easier to fill in on other maintenance teams when you run out of work or are down a man. We had a total of five aircraft during my tenure, four STOVL (B model) and one CV (C model carrier variant).

ALIS, the Automatic Logistics Information System, is an amazing concept that has the potential to drastically reduce administrative time, as well as improve troubleshooting accuracy, but it wasn’t complete during my time at the ITF. What I do know of it however, is that it is a great improvement upon NALCOMIS, which is the fleet’s current maintenance tracking system.”

In a nutshell, as the Su-30MKI has shown to the IAF, the single largest impact is the timely availability of spares and the various things that determine that availability. It could come down to supply (as was the case with the MKI's), or it could come down to the leadership only sanctioning 80% of requirement because they need the money elsewhere (Therefore being wiling to take a capability hit from an MA stand point)..The two most over-rated metrics, often used by many journalists are the Mission Availability rates, and the Cost Per Flying Hours. Both of them have very very little to do with the qualities attributed to them especially when there are other far more important metrics that are tracked, fleet wide (and have been for decades). The only time the MA rates are significantly important as a gauge of things, is when you are in a PBL..Like a Boeing signing a contract with its customers to guarantee adequate spare supply for an 80+% C-17 Mission availability rate etc etc.

Fortunately, most modern Air forces aren't as antiquated as your beloved MAF ..even the standard Availability dashboard with a mid-level OL will let them know exactly which component of the aircraft is breaking down faster than planned/desired or how the man-hours required to maintain the funded MA rate are tracking to the KPI's. With a modern PHM system (Like ALIS, and I think the Gripen NG team is also developing something like that) they get that a lot quicker and with near-real time fleet information updates. GE and other commercial players have been doing this sort of big-data work on their engines for years on the commercial aviation side..16 of the 24 Million software lines of code on the JSF program are directly attributed to its PHM system (ALIS)..

The F-35B demonstrated poor reliability in sea trials aboard the USS Wasp Despite the findings, the USMC is poised to declare the aircraft suitable for limited combat operations

The short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter demonstrated poor reliability in sea trials aboard the USS Wasp amphibious assault ship, the Pentagon's top testing official said in a 22 July report.

Reliability was below 50% during the testing period, Michael Gilmore, the director of operational testing for the US Department of Defense, said in the report viewed by IHS Jane's .

"Aircraft reliability was poor enough that it was difficult for the [US Marine Corps (USMC)] to keep more than two or three of the six embarked jets in a flyable status on any given day," Gilmore wrote.

The report was released just as General Joseph Dunford, the USMC commandant, is preparing to declare F-35B initial operational capability (IOC), which would allow it to be deployed into combat.

Marine officials have said that the readiness rate was in excess of 65% during the May 2015 Wasp trials. However, the report said that shipboard reliability and maintenance "were likely to present significant near-term challenges". Moreover, the challenge of keeping the aircraft flying "will be substantially tougher when the aircraft first deploys" on an operational mission, the report said.

Major Paul Greenberg, a USMC spokesman, said the corps disagreed with some of the report's conclusions. "Although some of the report is factually accurate, the marine corps does not agree with all of the conclusions and opinions," Greenberg said. "In some instances, the report contains statements that do not provide proper context or qualifying information, possibly leading readers to form inaccurate conclusions."

The entire objective of OT1 was to, for the first time use an operational squadron, operational maintainers, a brand new (less than a few days old at the time) ALIS and deploy on a ship to learn how best to deploy the aircraft, its systems, maintain it, and operate it at a tempo. Operational testing -2 was also designed to be PART-1 of a 2 part (OT2 to follow late next year) deployment to develop best-practices ranging from deploying the aircraft to organic support on an L-Class ship. In summary, there purpose was to go out and begin the process of developing protocols and CONOPS for deploying the aircraft. That effort is ongoing and will take some time, as the Marines get Post-concurrency jets and have a few years to develop effective tactics both from a fighting perspective and a maintaining perspective. They aren't deploying the F-35B on an L-Class ship for a couple of more years. All the current IOC, and subsequent Iwakuni deployment are on land and not on sea. Only once they learn the aircraft, develop procedures for deploying based on OT-1 and OT-2, will they take the thing out to sea in an operational context. Trying to absorb 5th generation capability isn't as easy as switching on an IOC switch once you have a working aircraft, and a basic infra. for support. It takes a few years even past that to effectively deploy the aircraft.

[/Marine officials have said that the readiness rate was in excess of 65% during the May 2015 Wasp trials. However, the report said that shipboard reliability and maintenance "were likely to present significant near-term challenges". Moreover, the challenge of keeping the aircraft flying "will be substantially tougher when the aircraft first deploys" on an operational mission, the report said.

Deploying on an L-Class ship is a minimum of 3 years away. The recent OT trials were to go and do some of the "FIRSTS" for the program and see and test some of the things they came up in theory against an actual operational environment. Things like sending a frontline squadron out to maintain a jet. Sending for the first time an engine module on a prototype carriage system (On a V-22) and seeing how best to maintain, and replace engines on a ship. What they also developed were protocols and procedures on how to best maintain LO coatings in an at sea environment, and test out the aircraft and how that aspect performs against the designed requirements. Essentially these efforts will go into the first syllabus and manuals on how to deploy the aircraft and it isn't just the USMC that is doing it. The Royal Navy is doing it as well every step of the way as they will be deploying with the Bravo on their QE class ships. Prior to this round of testing, they had just sent out developmental test aircraft, flown by DT pilots, using DT maintaining practices and they DID not deploy ALIS on a ship and were essentially dialing into the shore based ALIS for support with maintenance.

The overall MA goal for the F-35 is around 80% (its tied to the overall affordability goal, you could up it to 90% but then you would go past your affordability targets as well) and that is not something you achieve right at IOC but as previous aircraft have shown, it is a gradual process.

Many tx., but I frankly feel that in view of the ever increasing problems the JSF is facing, it does not deserve a page all to itself anymore!

PS:Just going through some old posts, MKI related , there was a significant milestone achieved recently.The 50th engine made from 100% Desi raw material! Over 350 engines have been manufactured already by Koraput.That is some achievement .

DUBAI, UAE – Approval of the UAE’s request to buy the F-35 hinges on the Gulf nation agreeing to take steps to protect the network-centric fighter’s sensitive technology and vast data bank of critical information, according to the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer.

The F-35 is more supercomputer than bomb truck – it is a flying data hub, designed to vacuum in critical threat information and transmit that data seamlessly throughout the allied force. But that capability presents a new set of challenges: protecting sensitive technology and sovereign information shared between international operators over the aircraft’s vast network.

This issue already has proven tricky for international F-35 partners and allies currently planning to operate the fighter. Now, news that the U.S. is considering selling the F-35 to Gulf nations could alarm those existing partners – particularly Israel. Tel Aviv is currently the exclusive operator of the Joint Strike Fighter in the Middle East region.

As the UAE seeks a classified briefing on the F-35, the U.S. is working closely with the Emirates to establish a structure to protect this kind of information, Ellen Lord, U.S. undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told Aviation Week in an interview at the Dubai Airshow.

The U.S. is “continuing to partner with the UAE on being able to release more hardware and software to them, and to some extent that’s predicated on a system to control critical information that somewhat aligns with the U.S.,” Lord said. “It’s not a question of right or wrong, it’s being able to communicate effectively and make sure we understand each other’s positions.”

The U.S. has procedures in place to ensure high-level government officials review critical information before it gets distributed throughout the force, Lord explains. Before the UAE can buy the F-35, the Gulf nation must agree to a similar standard, she said.

“We want that same thoughtful process to be applied in a way that’s somewhat consistent with the U.S. so we can share new technology,” she said.

For now, the Pentagon is focused on continuing to upgrade the UAE’s fleet of Lockheed Martin’s F-16s, Lord said. The Gulf nation’s Block 60 F-16 Desert Falcon fighters have been described as some of the most advanced F-16s operating anywhere in the world, and were the first to be equipped with an active electronically-scanned array radar and conformal fuel tanks.

As the UAE continues to upgrade the F-16, discussions are ongoing about implementing processes to ensure technology security on those aircraft. This conversation could lead to the UAE potentially securing other capabilities in future, such as the F-35, she said.

“I think we are making a lot of progress on F-16s,” Lord said. “I think there’s more we can do there, and again as we put more frameworks in place to deal with technically sensitive information, that will enable us to do more in terms of sharing.”

Lockheed and the UAE Armed Forces announced a $1.65 billion support upgrade contract for the Gulf nation’s F-16 here Nov. 11. Maj. Gen, Adbullah Al-Hashimi, executive director of the military committee at the Dubai Airshow, said the upgrade would deal with obsolescence issues in the Block 60 aircraft which were ordered by the UAE in 2000. Lockheed officials declined to provide additional details.

Lord stressed the importance of interoperability between allies in an ever more connected battlefield.

“In the multi-domain battle, interoperability is very important for the U.S. with our partners and allies,” Lord said. “We want to make sure that we go to war if we need to go to war, with our partners and allies with interoperable systems, so in order to do that we would like to sell them everything that we possibly can.”